7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

A.C. No. 8637. September 15, 2014.*

IMELDA CATO GADDI, complainant, vs. ATTY. LOPE
M. VELASCO, respondent.

Remedial Law; Evidence; Public Documents; Notarized

Documents; Notarization converts a private document to a public
document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof
of its authenticity.Time and again, we have reminded lawyers
commissioned as notaries public that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, and routinary act. Notarization converts a
private document to a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face;
for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the
basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
Notary Public; Rules on Notarial Practice; The 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize
a document unless the signatory to the document is in the notarys
presence personally at the time of the notarization, and personally
known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity.The 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a
document unless the signatory to the document is in the notarys
presence personally at the time of the notarization, and
personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified
through competent evidence of identity. At the time of
notarization, the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or
mark the notary publics notarial register. The purpose of these

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

requirements is to enable the notary public to verify the

genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the document
is the signatorys free act and deed. If the signatory is not acting
of his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse
to perform a notarial act. A notary public is also prohibited from
affixing an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that
is incomplete.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

75

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 75

Gaddi vs. Velasco

Same; Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; For

notarizing a document without ascertaining the identity and
voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for affixing his
signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and for dishonesty
in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his duties as notary
public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.In Isenhardt v. Real, 666 SCRA 20
(2012), a notary public who failed to discharge his duties was
meted out the penalty of revocation of his notarial commission,
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a
period of two years, and suspension from the practice of law for
one year. For notarizing a document without ascertaining the
identity and voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for
affixing his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and for
dishonesty in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his duties
as notary public and breached Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Considering these findings and our
previous rulings, Velasco should not only be disqualified for two

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

years as a notary public, he must also be suspended from the

practice of law for one year.

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. Violation

of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Pedro Lazo for complainant.

RESOLUTION

CARPIO,** J.:

The Case

Before us is an administrative complaint filed by Imelda
Cato Gaddi (Gaddi) against Atty. Lope M. Velasco (Velasco)
for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

_______________

* * Designated Acting Chief Justice.

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaddi vs. Velasco

The Facts

According to Gaddi, she was the Operations and
Accounting Manager of the Bert Lozada Swimming School
(BLSS) when she broached the idea of opening a branch of
BLSS in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya (BLSS in Solano) to Angelo
Lozada (Angelo), the Chief Operations Officer of BLSS.
Believing that Angelo agreed, Gaddi opened a BLSS in
Solano. However, in April 2010, Angelo informed the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

management that he did not authorize a BLSS in Solano.

Upon Angelos complaint, the police officers apprehended
the swimming instructors of BLSS in Solano, namely:
Jonathan Lagamzon Lozare, Katherine Agatha Gaddi
Ancheta, who is Gaddis niece, and Lorenz Ocampo Gaddi,
who is Gaddis grandson.
At past 10:00 a.m. of 22 April 2010, while inside the
BLSS main office in Sta. Ana, Manila, Gaddi was informed
of the apprehension of the swimming instructors. Worried,
Gaddi pleaded with Angelos wife, Kristina Marie, and the
BLSS Programs Manager Aleza Garcia for permission to
leave the office and proceed to Nueva Vizcaya. Instead of
acceding to her plea, they commanded Gaddi to make a
handwritten admission1 that the BLSS in Solano was
unauthorized. They warned Gaddi that she cannot leave
the office without the handwritten admission. Thus, Gaddi
conceded in doing the handwritten admission and left the
office before 1:00 p.m. of the same day. Subsequently,
Gaddi found out that Angelo filed a complaint against her
regarding the BLSS in Solano using her handwritten
admission, which was already notarized by Velasco.
Thus, Gaddi filed the present complaint against Velasco
for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
specifically Rule IV, Section 2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3.
Gaddi denied that she personally appeared before Velasco
to have her handwritten admission notarized. She alleged
that she did

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 6-9.

77

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 77

Gaddi vs. Velasco
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

not consent to its notarization nor did she personally know

him, give any competent evidence of identity or sign the
notarial register.
In his comment dated 17 September 2010,2 Velasco
alleged that he was commissioned notary public for Makati
City from 4 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. He alleged
that Gaddi appeared before him in his notarial office in
Makati City on 22 April 2010 and requested for the
notarization of a four-page handwritten document. He
ascertained Gaddis identity, through two identification
cards her BLSS ID and Tax Identification Number (TIN)
ID, and that the document was her own. Thereafter, he
notarized the document and recorded it in his notarial
register as Doc. No. 130, Page No. 27, Book No. 192, Series
of 2010. Velasco insisted that he duly complied with the
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and it was Gaddis
complaint, which was notarized by a fake notary public.
Velasco claimed that Gaddi only denied having the
document notarized when she found out that Angelo used
the document against her.

In a Resolution dated 18 October 2010,3 the Court
referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

The IBPs Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation dated 23 June 2011,4
Investigating Commissioner Pablo S. Castillo
(Investigating Commissioner) found the complaint
impressed with merit, and recommended a penalty of fine
of P5,000.00 on Velasco for violation of Rule IV, Section
2(b) and Rule VI, Section 3 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

2 Id., at pp. 13-20.

3 Id., at p. 23.
4 Id., at pp. 55-59.

78

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaddi vs. Velasco

The Investigating Commissioner gave more credence to

Gaddis statement that she did not personally appear
before Velasco to have her handwritten admission
notarized. The Investigating Commissioner found it
contradictory to logic and human experience that Gaddi
went first to Makati City to have her self-incriminating
handwritten admission notarized before proceeding to
Nueva Vizcaya. The Investigating Commissioner also
believed Gaddis statement that the identification cards
presented by Velasco were computer-generated from the
BLSS office, since the portion of the notarial certificate
listing the evidence of identity was left blank. As to
Velascos claim that Gaddis complaint had a fake notary
public, the Investigating Commissioner found it
unsubstantiated.
In Resolution No. XX-2013-1275 passed on 13 February
2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved
the Investigating Commissioners report and
recommendation, to wit:

RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby

unanimously ADOPTED and APPROVED, with modification, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
in the above entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as
Annex A, and finding the recommendation fully supported by
the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, and for
violation of Rule IV, Sec. [2(b) and Rule VI, Sec.] 3 of the 2004
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

Rules on Notarial Practice, Atty. Lope M. Velascos Notarial

Commission is hereby REVOKED and DISQUALIFIED for being
Commissioned as Notary Public for two (2) years with stern
[w]arning to be more circumspect in his dealing and that
repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely.

There was no motion for reconsideration filed.

_______________

5 Id., at p. 54.

79

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 79

Gaddi vs. Velasco

The Ruling of the Court

We sustain the findings of the IBP and adopt its
recommendations with modification.
Time and again, we have reminded lawyers
commissioned as notaries public that notarization is not an
empty, meaningless, and routinary act.6 Notarization
converts a private document to a public document, making
it admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity.7 A notarial document is, by law, entitled to
full faith and credit upon its face; for this reason, notaries
public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of their duties.8
The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a
notary public should not notarize a document unless the
signatory to the document is in the notarys presence
personally at the time of the notarization, and personally
known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity.9 At the time of notarization,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

the signatory shall sign or affix with a thumb or mark the

notary publics notarial register.10 The purpose of these
requirements is to enable the notary public to verify the
genuineness of the signature and to ascertain that the
document is the signatorys free act and deed.11 If the
signatory is not acting of his or her own free will,

_______________

6 Angeles v. Ibaez, 596 Phil. 99; 576 SCRA 90 (2009); Dela Cruz-
Sillano v. Pangan, 592 Phil. 219; 571 SCRA 479 (2008); Legaspi v.
Landrito, 590 Phil. 1; 569 SCRA 1 (2008); Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores, 549
Phil. 261; 520 SCRA 470 (2007); Gonzales v. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345; 460
SCRA 352 (2005); Dela Cruz v. Zabala, 485 Phil. 83; 442 SCRA 407 (2004);
Follosco v. Mateo, 466 Phil. 305; 421 SCRA 516 (2004); Aquino v. Manese,
448 Phil. 555; 400 SCRA 458 (2003).
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Rule IV, Section 2(b).
10 Rule VI, Section 3(a).
11 Dela Cruz-Sillano v. Pangan, supra note 6.

80

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaddi vs. Velasco

a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial

act.12 A notary public is also prohibited from affixing an
official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is
incomplete.13

In the present case, contrary to Velascos claim that
Gaddi appeared before him and presented two
identification cards as proof of her identity, the notarial

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

certificate, in rubber stamp, itself indicates: SUBSCRIBE

AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS APR 22, 2010 xxx
AT MAKATI CITY. AFFIANT EXHIBITING TO ME
HIS/HER C.T.C. NO. ____________ ISSUED AT/ON
___________.14 The unfilled spaces clearly establish that
Velasco had been remiss in his duty of ascertaining the
identity of the signatory to the document. Velasco did not
comply with the most basic function that a notary public
must do, that is, to require the presence of Gaddi;
otherwise, he could have ascertained that the handwritten
admission was executed involuntarily and refused to
notarize the document. Furthermore, Velasco affixed his
signature in an incomplete notarial certificate. Velasco did
not even present his notarial register to rebut Gaddis
allegations. It is presumed that evidence willfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced.15

In Isenhardt v. Real,16 a notary public who failed to
discharge his duties was meted out the penalty of
revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from
being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two
years, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.
For notarizing a

_______________

12 Rule IV, Section 4(c).

13 Rule IV, Section 5(b).
14 Rollo, p. 9.
15 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Section 3(e).
16 A.C. No. 8254, 15 February 2012, 666 SCRA 20, citing Lanuzo v.
Bongon, 587 Phil. 658; 566 SCRA 214 (2008); Bautista v. Bernabe, 517
Phil. 236; 482 SCRA 1 (2006); Judge Lopena v. Cabatos, 504 Phil. 1; 466
SCRA 419 (2005); Tabas v. Mangibin, 466 Phil. 296; 421 SCRA 511 (2004).

81

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 81

Gaddi vs. Velasco

document without ascertaining the identity and

voluntariness of the signatory to the document, for affixing
his signature in an incomplete notarial certificate, and for
dishonesty in his pleadings, Velasco failed to discharge his
duties as notary public and breached Canon 117 and Rule
1.0118 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Considering these findings and our previous rulings,19
Velasco should not only be disqualified for two years as a
notary public, he must also be suspended from the practice
of law for one year.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Lope
M. Velasco GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court SUSPENDS him
from the practice of law for one year, REVOKES his
incumbent notarial commission, if any, and PROHIBITS
him from being commissioned as a notary public for two
years, effective immediately, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
Let copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondents personal
record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.

Brion, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.** and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

17 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land
and promote respect for law and legal processes.
18 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
19 Isenhardt v. Real, supra note 16; Angeles v. Ibaez, supra note 6;
Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores, supra note 6; Gonzales v. Ramos, supra note 6.
* * Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1767 dated 27
August 2014.

82

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gaddi vs. Velasco

Atty. Lope M. Velasco suspended from practice of law for

one (1) year for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice and Code of Professional Responsibility and his
incumbent notarial commission revoked. He is prohibited
from being commissioned as notary public for two (2) years,
with stern warning against repetition of similar offense.

Notes.Section 2(b) of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on

Notarial Practice emphasizes the necessity of the affiants
personal appearance before the notary public. (Agbulos vs.
Viray, 690 SCRA 1 [2013])
A notary public should not notarize a document unless
the person who signed the same is the very same person
who executed and personally appeared before him to attest
to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.
(Id.)
o0o

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
7/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015d6677c2406fe9b7a1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12